Opinion
No. 2011–78 K C.
2012-09-5
ALFA MEDICAL SUPPLIES as Assignee of Roberto Bueno and Maria Abreu, Appellant, v. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO., Respondent.
Present PESCE, P.J., RIOS and ALIOTTA, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Margaret A. Pui Yee Chan, J.), entered June 15, 2010, deemed from a judgment of the same court entered November 3, 2010 (see CPLR 5501[c] ). The judgment, entered pursuant to the June 15, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A judgment was subsequently entered, from which the appeal is deemed to have been taken ( seeCPLR 5501 [c] ).
Contrary to plaintiff's argument on appeal, the affidavit submitted by defendant established the timely mailing of the denial of claim forms ( see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 1123 [2008];Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Chubb Group of Ins., 17 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ), which denied plaintiff's claims on the ground of lack of medical necessity. In addition, defendant submitted three sworn peer review reports which set forth a factual basis and a medical rationale for each doctor's determination that there was a lack of medical necessity for the supplies at issue. Defendant's prima facie showing was not rebutted by plaintiff.
Plaintiff asserts that the peer review reports contained electronic stamped facsimiles of the peer reviewers' signatures and, as a result, the reports are inadmissible. However, the record indicates that the signatures were placed on the reports by the doctors who had performed the peer reviews or at their direction ( see Quality Health Prods. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 129 [A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52299[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 34 Misc.3d 127[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52284[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011] ). Plaintiff's remaining contentions on appeal lack merit ( see e.g. Urban Radiology, P.C. v. Tri–State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc.3d 140[A], 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 50987 [U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010] ).
As plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied and defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted ( see Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. Integon Natl. Ins. Co., 24 Misc.3d 136[A], 2009 N.Y. Slip Op 51502[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; Delta Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co., 18 Misc.3d 128[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 52455[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]; A. Khodadadi Radiology, P.C. v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 16 Misc.3d 131[A], 2007 N.Y. Slip Op 51342[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007] ), the judgment is affirmed.